From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Gianelli Is Lying About Agent Tejeda/IRS
To: Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>
Francisco,
Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Gianelli Is Lying About Agent Tejeda/IRS
To: Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>
Francisco,
Would you please review Gianelli's public comments - below - re. his discussion with one of my trial lawyers. Gianelli is lying about Agent Tejeda/IRS - who did receive a subpoena (I am in possession of that) - and what my witnesses could or could not corroborate. Steven Machat (who Cohen has also defrauded of his and his father's 15% share of intellectual property) wanted to fly in for my trial. He then had a conflict. WHERE is the motion to stay or request for continuance. Steven had a conflict in his schedule. If the trial lawyers felt the Phil Spector testimony was irrelevant (and I thought it was psychotic) why didn't they file a motion to suppress? Are the trial lawyers trying to blame me for their ineffective assistance of counsel? Nikhil Ramnaney told me that the City Attorney was attempting to sabotage the IRS; the DA didn't want the Phil Spector verdict overturned; and the trial lawyers raised the issue of the Cohen/Kory conspiracy. In any event, it is shocking that one of my trial lawyers spoke to Gianelli but Gianelli's quite blatant about this fact. It shocked Joel Lofton at the Public Defenders office.
All the best,
Kelley
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
To the IRS Commissioner's Staff and DOJ,
Stephen Gianelli is obsessed with me. I am simply capturing his slanderous attacks on me and commenting on them. This man is now lying that Agent Tejeda/IRS didn't receive a subpoena. I am in possession of a copy of that subpoena, my attorney notes have the DOJ's phone number listed, and Agent Tejeda was contacted immediately after prosecutor Streeter handed the IRS binder over to my lawyers, although the attorney notes state that she was in possession of that since meeting with Kory two weeks earlier and just handed it over on April 9th in the middle of the trial which is outrageous conduct. The judge wouldn't permit us to wait two hours to hear from Agent Tejeda/IRS before sending the case to trial. It's on the record and I personally addressed that on the record as well. Why didn't the trial lawyer file a continuance or motion to stay the proceedings? As lawyers have asked - what was Judge Robert Vanderet's hurry? Gianelli is lying about witnesses who could corroborate what I had to say - that would include Steven Machat who weighed in on Michelle Rice's frraudulent letter to me of February 14, 2011. The transcript of our conversation was concealed. In any event, what would cause Gianelli and a trial lawyer of mine to lie about Agent Tejeda and the IRS? It seems quite unwise.All the best,Kelley
6. The IRS agent you wanted to call to the stand was never personally served with a subpoena and was not even contacted until the middle of the trial. Nor did he ever agree to appear at your trial. Obviously, the IRS avoided your trial like the plague.
Whether or not Jane Doe had two black eyes is irrelevant. The fact that I wasn’t served and the proof of service is fraudulent is the legal issue. I had no female co-occupant and was not served Leonard Cohen’s Complaint in his wholly retaliatory and fraudulent lawsuit. I was not served or notified of the default judgment that was entered in May 2006 when I was homeless. Therefore, the judgment (complete with fraudulent expense ledger which is positively outrageous and in no way resembles an accounting - that lists assets, liabilities, equity, corporate ownership interests - and meaningless numbers with no backup documentation together with suspect non-audited statements provided by Cohen’s investor who has now been sued by the SEC and defrauded many people of their retirement accounts) is VOID. LA Superior Court has a serious problem with their fraudulent proof of service scam and that also extends to Cohen’s so-called domestic violence order (when we were not in a dating or intimate relationship) that I was not served or notified of. Apparently, LA Superior Court has a pattern of this type of scandalous activity.Blogonaut said...
Oh, and Kelley, when a legal document refers to "Jane Doe", it does not mean that her name is literally Jane or Ms. doe.And when a proof of service describes "black eyes" the process server did not mean to say the female handed the papers had "one or more" shiners.Good Lord, how obtuse.As anyone who has watched Law and Order or CSI knows, "Jane Doe" refers to a female whose identity is unknown.
March 23, 2013 at 3:23 AMObsessed stalker and a man engaged in an ongoing ad hominem attack on my character continues to think he is actually writing to me. I have been clear and I have studied this matter: Stephen Gianelli (aligned with a woman who stole $900,000 from Phil Spector - together they conspired to target my emails and blogs in an attempt to silence me) sets up reasonable doubt theories about Phil Spector. The cyber-terrorists, in a highly coordinated fashion, then descend and rip apart the theories by further slandering and trashing Phil Spector. It’s the tactic de jour with respect to high profile legal cases. Anyone who understands social media and bullying should be able to see right through these tactics.Blogonaut said...
Kelley Lynch,From my comment to the LAT review of the Spector HBO movie [StephenG2010 at 6:19 AM March 22, 2013] – which criticized the reporter you don’t like (Harriet Ryan) and stated that Phil Spector did NOT receive a fair trial – you infer that I am involved in a “coordinated effort” with Harriet Ryan and prosecutor Alan Jackson that is adverse to Phil Spector?You are one sick lady.Gianelli, a man who has relentlessly targeted me and my family, friends, and others, is a dangerously unstable man. I have been clear with the IRS and FBI - this man needs to be investigated for criminal witness tampering, criminal witness intimidation, stalking, harassment, etc. The USPS Inspector in the Bay Area advised me that they opened a criminal investigation into certain U.S. mail activity with respect to Gianelli and his targeting of me via an individual in Ft. Lauderdale. Leonard Cohen also has a serious USPS Inspector matter. He illegally attempted to change my mailing address on my personal/management company mail. I filed a complaint with the USPS at the time and that is further evidence of criminal conduct.From Kelley Lynch’s blog last night:FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 2013The Usual Suspects On Phil Spector - The LA Times, Harriet Ryan, Sprocket, Stephen Gianelli ... It's A Coordinated Effort And Has Been Throughout The Trials ... It's Unfortunate Ron Burkle Wasn't Able To Buy The LA Times - Perhaps Some Of The Corruption In Los Angeles Would Be More TransparentPOINTING PEOPLE TO SPROCKET'S BLOG. SPROCKET IS NOW EVIDENTLY A FRIEND OF LA SUPERIOR COURT'S DARK SHADOWS SOAP OPERA SYSTEMlynda360 at 3:12 PM March 22, 2013For those without a specific agenda and for those with an genuine interest in knowing more about the trial, including documents involved, etc., I strongly recommend checking out Trials & Tribulations, a great blog but entertaining as well as informative.Here's the link to the Spector case:And 'Sprocket' didn't just cover this case, she's covered and continues to cover other cases from a personal but factual approach.IS THIS MY STALKER, STEPHEN GIANELLI, SETTING UP REASONABLE DOUBT THEORIES ABOUT PHIL SPECTOR THAT CAN THEN BE ATTACKED AND REFUTED? I'DBET THE FARM THAT IT IS AND I SEE RIGHT THROUGH STEPHEN GIANELLI WHO WAS MOST DEFINITELY CONSPIRING WITH MICHELLE BLAINE ABOUT ME AND TARGETING MY BLOGS AND EMAIL ACCOUNTS. THAT'S WHEN I REALIZED - PERHAPS ALAN JACKSON IS SOMEHOW CONNECTED TO STEPHEN GIANELLI ...StephenG2010 at 6:19 AM March 22, 2013Harriet,By questioning the accuracy of the verdicts in the Jackson and Blake trials, you do more undermine confidence in the jury system than a hollywood movie ever could.Some of us believe that Phillip Spector - guilty or innocent - did not receive a fair trial. No trial movie can be 100% accurate in detail (trials are essentially tedious affairs and there were no cameras in Spector's mansion), but at their best they caputure the essence.I'll reserve judgment until I have seen the film.
REDACTED. Addressed. Doron Weinberg might want to rethink his position on Stephen Gianelli. Other people have come to the conclusion that Gianelli is a psychopath and sick and vile man. Perhaps Doron Weinberg should ponder this question: Why did Investigator Frayeh/DA’s office advise Kelley Lynch that he felt Gianelli was a shady character who may have found a sympathetic ear with Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson about Kelley Lynch? Doron Weinberg might also want to contemplate this - why did Michelle Blaine (who stole $900,000 from Phil Spector) conspire with Stephen Gianelli/Blogonaut to target Kelley Lynch’s email accounts and blogs that defended Phil Spector and truthfully addressed the facts about Leonard Cohen. Perhaps Doron Weinberg understands the three versions of Leonard Cohen’s gun stories re. Phil Spector before LA Superior Court - well, the prosecutor in my insane intent to annoy trial does continue to conceal one that I have in my possession. I would assume Doron Weinberg can read the Grand Jury transcripts that Mick Brown/UK Telegraph reviewed and can read the statements of Cohen’s that Phillip’s prosecutors used against Phil Spector - also in motions available online (LA Superior Court). If Doron Weinberg can read them, he will see that Phil Spector’s prosecutors used a version of the Cohen highly embellished Phil Spector gun stories where a semi-automatic gun is pointed at the chest and yet in my trial Cohen testified that an automatic was pointed at his head.Beyond that - WOW! Doron Weinberg wrote Stephen Gianelli. I wrote Phil Spector about Stephen Gianelli. I can assure you Phil Spector sees right through a man who conspired with Michelle Blaine to target my email accounts and blogs - including kelleylynchandphilspector.blogspot.,com. In fact, Phil Spector’s trial lawyer Doran Weinberg – who shares office space with Dennis Riordan in San Francisco, wrote me at the conclusion of the retrial to thank me for the counter-balancing coverage of the retrial on Blogonaut.March 23, 2013 at 3:56 AMBlogonaut said...
Oh, and Ms. Lynch, one of your FORMER public defenders told me the following:The fact that Gianelli/Blogonaut talked to one of my trial lawyers is outrageous and shocked the public defender’s office. I would assume this is highly illegal but Gianelli/Blogonaut is bragging about it.1. That you were in complete denial about your mental health issues and the legal issues in your harassment trial, which were limited to was there a restraining order and did you violate it (his or her words not mine).The public defender is a bald-faced liar and he might want to speak to my appellate attorney about his work which is shabby, misstates facts and evidence, etc. In have no mental health problems but I think the trial lawyer that spoke to Gianelli has some legal problems.2. You refused to waive time for trial, yet wanted to litigate issues in your trial going back years.I see the fact that the PD did not tell me about the plea deal is a motivating factor. I never said I wanted to litigate issues going back years. The trial judge permitted the admittance of this deranged evidence. Where’s the motion to exclude the irrelevant and wholly immaterial evidence? I did refuse to waive time for the trial. That’s my legal right. I still was not informed of a plea deal and this sentence doesn’t explain the ineffective assistance of counsel issues. My trial lawyer was unable to figure out what LA Superior Court advised me - that a civil harassment order I requested in Colorado cannot be registered as a domestic violence order in California? Where’s the collateral attack on the California order that I wasn’t served or notified of?3. That the PD's office called all of the potential witnesses you provided them with, and that your lawyers were unable to corroborate ANY of your claims. That is why no defense witnesses were called to the stand (except you).I see the PD thinks he can lie about Steven Machat who wanted to fly across the country, at his own expense, to testify on my behalf but had a conflict in his schedule. Why didn’t the trial lawyer ask for a continuance or stay or proceedings over this - or, at the very least, ask for a declaration from Machat? Why didn’t they contact Doug Davis/FTB for a declaration? Agent Kelly Sopko? Why didn’t they follow up with the individual at Boies Schiller - they were given a name of someone to speak with at BS who understood this - Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory were asking Kelley Lynch to engage in criminal conduct. Why didn’t they contact Greenberg’s lawyer who wrote me (and I forwarded this to the IRS and FBI, etc .) that they have evidence of witness tampering with respect to Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, and others. And it goes on and on. Rutger wanted to take the stand. The judge refused to permit it although it wasn’t over SWAT. It was to impeach Cohen re. his deranged testimony about Rutger’s Whole Foods matter which horrifies decent people. The judge refused to wait two hours for us to hear from Agent Tejeda/IRS before sending the case to the jurors. As lawyers are now asking me (including Steven Machat) - what was his hurry? Plenty of people corroborate what I have to say and I just spoke to my former lawyer (Dianne DiMascio) about what Kory testified to with respect to her and her husband.4. Your lawyers recognized that your conspiracy theories were utter nonsense but elected to manage you by "indulging" you in conversation on these issues, that is "humoring" you and not disagreeing with your wacky views.I didn’t have any conspiracy theories. See attorney notes in my file. They obtained the Neal Greenberg legal documents and raised the conspiracy with respect to Cohen and Kory. The lawyers never met with me to discuss this case. The bailiff repeatedly pointed this out to me. Perhaps that’s why at least one of them is lying now.5. Your defense team never believed that any statements Leonard Cohen made about Phil Spector in the past or that the Phil Spector case was in any way relevant to your prosecution for harassing Cohen.I can’t understand the English language here but it’s bizarre that my trial lawyers wouldn’t have addressed - in a motion - the fact that Streeter concealed an email sent to them (which they showed me) with respect to Cohen’s gun story about Phil Spector. It impeaches his testimony. Well, if my lawyers didn’t believe this - where’s the motion to suppress or exclude this testimony? Streeter entered this evidence into the record. Cohen testified about it. I couldn’t even imagine why this was permitted. My trial lawyer told me - the DA does not want the Phil Spector verdict overturned and the City Attorney is attempting to sabotage the IRS and you. Therefore, Gianelli must have spoken to Mike Kelly.6. The IRS agent you wanted to call to the stand was never personally served with a subpoena and was not even contacted until the middle of the trial. Nor did he ever agree to appear at your trial. Obviously, the IRS avoided your trial like the plague.Agent Tejeda/IRS was indeed served the subpoena. He and one of my trial lawyers spoke. Agent Tejeda was served the subpoena IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the prosecutor’s handing over the IRS binder to my lawyers. I Ithink Agent Tejeda/IRS will be aware that this is a bald-faced lie by a man who transmits fraud to the IRS about me. The IRS didn’t avoid my trial and, in fact, Agent Tejeda advised my lawyer to call him back if he could be of further assistance in a future proceeding. The judge refused to wait two hours for Agent Tejeda to speak to IRS lawyers about what he was permitted to testify to - see the trial record.
Why would one of your FORMER public defenders call me, one might ask (and he or she phoned me, not the reverse)?Because, Ms. Lynch, the day you were released from jail in September of 2012 and while I was in Europe, you lit up my Blackberry with emails, many CCing me with your attorney-client communications with your public defenders. (There were six such initial emails sent that day.)What rotten logic and the fact that I have spoken publicly about certain matters does not entitle a trial lawyer of mine to violate attorney/client privilege. The mere notion is outrageous. In any event, this conduct SHOCKED the public defenders office.I emailed you back – cc to your defenders – suggesting that it was not in your interest to do this, that you were waiving the attorney-client privilege. Your defenders specifically cautioned you to NOT continue to waive the attorney client privilege in this manner.My trial lawyer wrote and asked me to advise him if anyone asked to be removed from my emails. Neither Doug Davis/FTB or Captain Bornman/LASD made that request. I wrote Gianelli, relentlessly, advising him to cease and desist. What’s his explanation for targeting my appellate attorney who is privately discussing Gianelli and his conduct with me and has not communicated with this stark raving lunatic? REDACTED THE BALANCE OF THIS PSYCHOTIC RANT. How do you know a lawyer’s lying? Their lips or fingers are moving. See Stephen Gianelli.
REDACTED. I am capturing the articles and posts on Gianelli’s blogs. They are evidence from my perpsective and I have been addressing my views on them with the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Phil Spector’s appellate attorney, Dennis Riordan.
